Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39296585›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Asthma diagnosis: a comparison of established diagnostic guidelines in adults with respiratory symptoms.

Andrew J Simpson, Sarah Drake, Laura Healy, Ran Wang, Miriam Bennett, Hannah Wardman, Hannah Durrington, Stephen J Fowler, Clare S Murray, Angela Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andrew J SimpsonSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hull, United Kingdom.
Sarah DrakeManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Laura HealyManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Ran WangManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Miriam BennettDivision of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.
Hannah WardmanDivision of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.
Hannah DurringtonManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Stephen J FowlerManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Clare S MurrayManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Angela SimpsonManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Considerable variability exists between asthma diagnostic guidelines. We tested the performance characteristics of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults. Methods: In this prospective observational study (ISRCTN-11676160, May 2019-June 2022), participants referred from primary care with clinician-suspected asthma underwent comprehensive investigation including: spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, peak expiratory flow variability, bronchial challenge testing with methacholine and mannitol, and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Results were reviewed by a panel of asthma specialists to determine asthma diagnosis (reference standard) and compared to each diagnostic test and the ERS, NICE and GINA diagnostic algorithms (index tests). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values were calculated. Findings: One hundred and forty adults were enrolled and 118 given a definitive diagnostic outcome [75 female; mean (SD) age 36 (12) years; 70 (59%) with asthma] and included in the analysis. Sensitivity of individual tests was poor (15-62%), but they provided good specificity at the most stringent thresholds (range: 88-100%). The sensitivity/specificity of ERS, NICE and GINA was 81/85%, 41/100% and 47/100%, respectively. Concordance between guidelines was only moderate (Cohen's Kappa 0.45-0.51). Interpretation: Current guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults provide either excellent specificity but low sensitivity (GINA and NICE) or only reasonable sensitivity and specificity (ERS). All guidelines therefore have limitations with regards to their clinical application; new guidelines are needed but should be tested prospectively before roll out. Funding: This work was supported by the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (grant no. BRC-1215-20007, and NIHR203308), Asthma UK/Innovate (grant no. AUK-PG-2018-406), GSK ID 212474 and North West Lung Centre Charity.

Indexed as

AsthmaDiagnosisGuidelines

Identifiers

PMID39296585
PMCPMC11408836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.